Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreFollowing a matrimonial dispute, the complainant alleged that his wife's family and a large group of relatives (11 named, with many more unnamed) trespassed into his house, threatened him, and demanded money. After the original 11 accused were chargesheeted, the complainant, during his own testimony at trial, named 20 additional people and sought to have them summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Magistrate refused, but the Madras High Court, in revision, allowed the application and ordered the 20 additional persons to be arrayed as accused.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly, and only where there is strong and cogent evidence, more than a mere possibility of involvement, against the proposed accused. Here, none of the 20 additional names had appeared anywhere in the original FIR or in witness statements recorded during investigation; they surfaced for the first time only in the complainant's courtroom testimony, in what the Court viewed as an attempt to "cast the net wide" in a family/matrimonial dispute without any real evidentiary basis. The Court restored the Magistrate's order declining to summon the additional accused.
A criminal complainant cannot simply add new names to the list of accused mid-trial based on bare assertions; courts require strong, specific evidence before expanding the list of people who must stand trial, to prevent the process from being misused to harass extended family members in personal disputes.
